The court upheld the validity of a sale deed executed under special circumstances despite its registration outside the state, rejecting an unsubstantiated will based on lack of evidence and authentication.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal had been filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2007 made in A.S. No. 108 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2006 made in O.S. No. 1538 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Salem.

2. The Plaint averments in brief are as follows:-

2.1. The suit property originally belonged to one Ramasamy Chettiar.

He had only son namely Nagarajan who is the father of the 1st Defendant and the father-in-law of the Plaintiff. The said Nagarajan had two sons namely Purushothaman and the 1st Defendant. The Purushothaman died on 27.11.1997 leaving behind the Plaintiff as his legal heir. The said Ramasamy Chettiar executed a registered settlement deed in the year 1979 in favour of the 1st Defendant and the Purushothaman and both of them having equal share in the property. They enjoyed without partition and during his life time the said Purushothaman sold his undivided 1/2 share to the Plaintiff through a registered sale deed in the year 1997. From that onwards the Plaintiff is in joint possession of the property along with the 1st Defendant as she felt inconvenience she demanded for partition for which the 1st Defendant was not amenable and also they claimed unlawful claim over the property along with the Defendants 2 and 3. The Defendants 2 and 3 also created a Will to defraud the claim of the Plaintiff. Hence, she come forward this suit.

3. The averments in the written statement filed by the 1st Defendant in brief are as follows :-

3.1. The 1st Defendant admitted the relationship, but he denied the other allegations in the plaint. This Defendant denied that the said Purushothaman sold his undivided 1/2 share to this Plaintiff under sale deed. He submits that the said Purushothaman was suffered from incurable disease and he was given medical treatment, he has no intention to sell the property to anybody. Already there was a partition orally and the same was confirmed under Koor Chit Agreement dated 25.08.1997, on that “B” schedule property was allotted to the said Purushothaman. So there was no property in joint possession as stated by the Plaintiff. During life time, he said Purushothaman executed a will in favour of the 3rd Defendant and also given life interest to his mother 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff was given only Rs. 50,000/- and also permitted to remarrying as per the Will dated 10.08.1997 executed by the said Purushothaman. But the Plaintiff unlawfully get a sale deed from the said Purushothaman and registered the said document in the Kerala State which is prohibited by Tamil Nadu Government, no consideration was passed. The suit is not maintainable in law and prayed for the dismissal of the same.

4. The averments in the written statement filed by the Defendants 2 and 3 in brief are as follows :-

4.1. They claimed right over the property as per Will said to be executed by the said Purushothaman on 10.08.1997. So they denied the right over the property under the sale deed.

5. The averments in the Additional written statement filed by the 1st Defendant are as follows:-

5.1. As per the oral partition, the eastern half share was allotted to the 1st Defendant and the western half share was allotted to the said Purushothaman. So the Plaintiff has to file only for the western half alone and the description of the property is erroneous one. This Defendant already sold full share to one Ramaraj, who is necessary party to the proceedings.

6. The averments in the reply statement filed by the Plaintiff as fol